Environmental goods and services: Defining negotiations or negotiating definitions?

Journal of World Trade

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 93-122

  Vikhlyaev, Alexey ^a  

^a UNCTAD

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745825633     PISSN: 10116702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/trad2004004     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Doha Ministerial Declaration, para. 31(iii).
2. "With a view to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, we agree to negotiations, without prejudging their outcome, on: . . . (iii) the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services." Doha Ministerial Declaration, para. 31.
3. Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 28 March 2001 form the basis for continuing the negotiations, with a view to achieving the objectives of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, as stipulated in the Preamble, Article IV and Article XIX of that Agreement.
4. Dale Andrew, Modernizing the List of Environmental Services: OECD Proposals, in Energy and Environmental Services: Negotiating Objectives and Development Policies (UNCTAD, 2003).
5. Most recent contributions to this debate by Dale Andrew of the OECD, Grant Ferrier of the EBI, and Scott Vaughan of Carnegie Endowment are of particular interest.
6. See Elements for Negotiating Guidelines and Procedures. Communication from Argentina et al. Council for Trade in Services, Special Session, S/CSS/W/13, 24 November 2000.
7. US OTA (1994), quoted from Environmental Goods and Services: an Assessment of the Environmental, Economic and Development Benefits of Further Global Trade Liberalisation, COM/TD/ENV(2000)86/FINAL (Paris: OECD, October 2000).
8. OECD, The Global Environmental Goods and Services Industry (Paris: OECD, 1998).
9. Environmental Goods and Services Industry Manual for the Collection and Analysis of Data (Paris: OECD/Eurostat, 1999).
10. OECD, Environmental Goods and Services: The Benefits of further Global Trade Liberalisation (Paris: OECD, 2001), pp. 11-13.
11. However, there are methodological problems with identification and measurement since existing data cannot easily be compared across these groups.
12. The two categories are not mutually exclusive as some EPPs may be incidental to the delivery of environmental services.
13. For a number of EPPs, scale is a factor. They are environmentally friendly only when produced on a relatively small scale.
14. Less environmental harm is generally established according to the following criteria: (a) use of natural resources and energy; (b) amount and hazardousness of waste generated by the product along its life cycle; (c) impact on human and animal health; and (d) preservation of the environment. For more information on the concept and criteria of EPPs, see: Environmental Preferable Products (EPPs) as a Trade Opportunity for Developing Countries, Report by UNCTAD Secretariat, UNCTAD/COM/70 (Geneva: UNCTAD, December 1995).
15. Production, processing, consumption or disposal.
16. See UNCTAD, as note 14 above, pp. 5-7.
17. These categories are not mutually exclusive, e.g., jute is superior to polyethylene and organic at the same time.
18. 2 certificate.
19. Actually the estimates vary from US$ 350 billion to US$ 550 billion, depending on the definition used. The two main sources are the Environmental Business International (EBI) and the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU). The significant differences in estimates have to do with the fact that the EBI statistics includes certain sectors - water utilities, water treatment services and resources recovery - that do not correlate clearly with the JEMU statistics.
20. Environmental Benefits of Removing Trade Restrictions and Distortions. Note by the Secretariat, Addendum. Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/W/67/Add.1, 13 March 1998;
21. Implications of WTO Agreements for International Trade in Environmental Industries (ITC, 1999).
22. The leading exporter in the EU is Germany (APC, water/wastewater, instrumentation), which accounts for 17 percent of world trade and is second only to the United States; other countries with strong export positions are France (water/wastewater, APC), United Kingdom (water/ wastewater, monitoring, APC), Denmark (water and waste) and Italy (waste, APC).
23. Extended information is available at .
24. Environmental Issues Raised in the Services Negotiations, statement by Mr A. Hamid Mamdouh at the Regular Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 29-30 April 2003, WT/CTE/GEN/11, 16 April 2003.
25. See Factors affecting Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology, Note by the WTO Secretariat, WT/CTE/W/22, 1996.
26. Interestingly, there is no consensus in APEC on the definition and categorization of the environmental industry. The definitions and categorizations employed by member economies differ greatly.
27. OECD, Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods: Some Practical Considerations, Document No. COM/ENV/TD(2003)34/FINAL (Paris: OECD, 2003).
28. The proposed changes will be finalized by mid-2004 and a revised system will take effect in January 2007.
29. Filters to purify industrial emissions into the air and water, sewage treatment equipment, potable water treatment equipment, recycling equipment etc.
30. This problem is not specific to environmental goods, of course.
31. WTO, Environmental Database for 2001, WT/CTE/EDB/1, 31 May 2002. According to the WTO Secretariat, over the last decade, between 10 and 11 percent of all TBT notifications referred to some kind of environmental consideration. (In 1998 and 2000, the number of notifications were slightly above 15 percent.) This ranks among the single-most important categories of all TBT notifications.
32. The terms used by the WTO Secretariat in compiling the Environmental Database include carbon, clean, climate, conservation, eco-label, greenhouse, pollution, hazardous, indigenous, organic, modified organisms, packaging, toxic materials, soil erosion, wildlife and wood.
33. OECD, as note 26 above.
34. Developing Countries' Trade in Environmental Goods, Conference Room Paper for an Expert Meeting on Definitions and Dimensions of Environmental Goods and Services in Trade and Development, UNCTAD, 9-11 July 2003, TD/B/COM.1/EM.21/CRP.1 (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2003).
35. UNCTAD, as note 33 above.
36. Japan has circulated a list of environmental goods, which is based on the OECD list, and includes energy-efficient products such as microwave ovens, refrigerators and video projectors, as well as other less-polluting and more resource-efficient goods.
37. Qatar made a proposal to include energy-efficient technologies such as combined-cycle natural-gas-fired generation systems and advanced gas-turbine systems. In a follow-up paper Qatar links the proposal with the objectives of multilateral environmental agreements, in particular the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, and claims that non-tariff barriers are serious impediments to global trade in these goods.
38. There are apprehensions that some chemicals, e.g., ammonia, can produce negative environmental effects in other sectors.
39. Situations where a service provider is pre-selected as part of a development assistance package.
40. Both the CPC Prov. and the W/120 were established in 1991, the former by the Statistical Office of the United Nations, and the latter by the GATT Secretariat. The W/120 is in fact a simplified version of the CPC.
41. This categorization is based on the view expressed by Luis Abugattas, UNCTAD, at the Expert Meeting on definitions and Dimensions of Environmental Goods and Services in Trade and Development, Geneva, 9-11 July 2003.
42. Strictly speaking, GATS Article XIX sets out the principle of "progressive liberalisation of trade in services", but not towards deregulation as such.
43. USTR, Free Trade in Services Opening Dynamic New Markets, Supporting Good Jobs, Trade Facts (USTR, 31 March 2003).
44. See Environmental Services, Communication from Colombia, Council for Trade in Services - Special Session, S/CSS/W/121, 27 November 2001.
45. See Environmental Services, Communication from the United States, Council for Trade in Services - Special Session, S/CSS/W/25, 18 December 2000;
46. Classification Issues in the Environment Sector, Communication from the European Communities and their Member States, S/CSC/W/25, 28 September 1999.
47. OECD, as note 10 above.
48. The OECD/Eurostat definition goes beyond the classification proposed by the EU for negotiations purposes.
49. CPC 9401 - Sewage Services - covers: sewage removal, treatment and disposal services. Equipment used are waste pipes, sewers or drains, cesspools or sceptic tanks and processes utilized include dilution, screening and filtering, sedimentation, chemical precipitation, etc.
50. It should be noted that GATS does not cover ownership of natural resources.
51. "... services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority".
52. Markus Krajewski, National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services: The Legal Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on National Regulatory Autonomy (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003).
53. See Scott Vaughan, Trade Preferences and Environmental Goods, in Trade, Equity and Development 5 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003).
54. This approach is being advocated, e.g., by Ilkka Saarinen, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland.
55. The Agreement applies to both goods and services. Its current membership is essentially limited to developed countries.
56. The Committee forms part of the ... under the Plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement.
57. At present, the GATS contains no specific rules. However, a country providing a subsidy to national but not to foreign suppliers of a service committed in its schedule must have entered a national treatment limitation to that effect. Whatever disciplines are developed will not apply to governmental services, because these are outside the scope of the GATS.
58. See Markus Krajewski, Public Services and Trade Liberalization: Mapping the Legal Framework, 6 Journal of International Economic Law 2 (2003), pp. 341-367. Some examples given by Krajewski are of interest. Bulgaria uses the term "services supplied under governmental authority" in its schedule and states that commitments in environmental services do not include services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority. A footnote explains that these services are "regulatory, administrative and control services by government and municipal bodies related to environmental issues". Two members use the term "public services" in their schedules. The Dominican Republic listed prior registration of foreign investment as a horizontal limitation, but stated that registration is "totally prohibited in public services, such as drinking water, sewage ...".
59. See Vaughan, as note 51 above.
60. As the NGMA does not cover agricultural products, trade liberalization of agricultural EPPs could perhaps be discussed in the CTESS.
61. The Plan of Implementation adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) calls on countries to "support voluntary, WTO compatible, market-based initiatives for the creation and expansion of domestic and international markets for environmentally friendly goods and services, including organic products, which maximize environmental and developmental benefits"..., para. 93(b).
62. Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis (eds), State Trading in the Twenty-First Century, World Trade Forum, Volume I (Ann Arbot, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001).
63. This proposal was argued by Thomas Cottier, Director, World Trade Institute, at the Expert Meeting on Environmental Goods and Services, UNCTAD, Geneva, 9-11 July 2003.